On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 09:04:51AM +0000, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > On la, 2011-01-22 at 18:48 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes: > > > Le Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:42:17PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit : > > > > There seems to be consensus to add an optional License field to the > > > > first paragraph. […] > > > Here is a first attempt. Comments welcome: the discussion was a bit > > > complex and I am not sure if I summarised it well. > > One aspect I don't see covered in your patch: ‘Copyright’ and ‘License’ > > only make sense as a pair (details in the preceding discussion). I think > > the standard should specify that if either is used, both must be used. > I find it reasonable to use only License, to indicate that a specific > license applies to the package as a whole, without having any one party > have a copyright on the package as a whole. If the package contains of > files A and B, with A being GPL2+ and B being GPL3+, the header > paragraph's License field could say GPL3+. There would still be no need > to have a Copyright field in the header paragraph. > I would prefer to keep things simpler, and not have a rule about when > either field requires the other. If a Copyright is declared at the top level (a compilation copyright), doesn't that necessarily require that we be given a copyright license as well? So a License could appear without a Copyright (to indicate the effective license of a work), but a Copyright should not appear without a License. If that's true, I think it's important to call it out in the spec. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature